Posted!

Join the Conversation

Comments

Welcome to our new and improved comments, which are for subscribers only.
This is a test to see whether we can improve the experience for you.
You do not need a Facebook profile to participate.

You will need to register before adding a comment.
Typed comments will be lost if you are not logged in.

Please be polite.
It's OK to disagree with someone's ideas, but personal attacks, insults, threats, hate speech, advocating violence and other violations can result in a ban.
If you see comments in violation of our community guidelines, please report them.

OPINION

High Court right on state's districts

Alabama Republicans didn't get away with their cynical use of race and redistricting for political advantage. The Supreme Court has ruled against them, and on the very day marking the 50th anniversary of the end of the Voting Rights March. The rich irony of the ruling no doubt will prompt howls of protest from the GOP, but it should be applauded by every Alabamian who cares about fair representation and honest drawing of legislative districts.

Those districts have to be redrawn after each census. The party that controls the Legislature controls the redistricting process, and there's nothing wrong with that – up to a point. The concern comes when that process is manipulated purely for gaining a political edge instead of being carried out responsibly to fairly apportion the seats in the Legislature in a manner that reflects the shifts in the size and location of the population since the previous census.

Redistricting can be an enormously effective political tool if the party controlling the process chooses to use it as such. Districts can be drawn to protect incumbents, for example, or to virtually assure a party's triumph in a particular contest. The courts historically have allowed some latitude in redistricting, and it is reasonable to do so.

But the party doing the redistricting can go too far in flexing its political muscle, too far in a political power grab that serves its purposes, but not the common good. When that happens, the courts can be called upon to examine the situation and temper the excesses.

In the Alabama redistricting case, Republican legislators in 2012 crafted a plan that packed many black voters into primarily urban districts, often increasing their already significant majorities in those districts while at the same time diminishing their presence and influence elsewhere. Given Alabama's current mix of race and politics – an overwhelmingly white Republican Party and a largely black Democratic Party – there was a distinct political advantage for the Republicans in this.

Packing more black voters into districts Republicans weren't going to win anyway also creates more districts with higher white populations that tend to favor the election of Republicans. This was no accident, nor was it the natural result of population shifts. It was a manipulated map, and the Supreme Court recognized it as such.

Nothing can take the politics out of redistricting, but the process can be conducted in a fair, equitable manner that properly takes into account the demographic and residential realities of the state without being distorted for the sake of one party's advantage.